G Force calculations prove official Pentagon attack flight path impossible

I wander if someone can point me to some place, showing how these calculations were made? I am talking about G forces. I guess it's based on the suggestion that during the impact AC was in level flight. Or almost at level flight. And it had to clear the antenna. Correct? So I would guess that based on that we can calculate radius of the arc and knowing the speed, we can easy figure out centrifugal force and G forces. Do we have the equations that were actually used to calculate it? I'd like to see them.

reply to post by weedwhacker

I don't thing what you are describing is supported by the FDR? The official flightpath has the plane coming in level as I understand it, not banking. What does that have to do with the plane pulling out of the steep rate of decent? Maybe you can point out where in the FDR data there is evidence to support what you are talking about?

reply to post by weedwhacker


What does that have to do with the NTSB data?

You see this is NOT a hypothetical situation.

There is official data that the official story MUST match with.

You are just making stuff up whereas the data does not reflect what you are talking about.

The NTSB data has the plane completely out of the descending spiral long before the VDOT antenna.

The final stretch from the last reported lat long coordinate to light pole one is also a perfectly straight line.


According to the official data the plane CAN NOT have banked during the segment in question.

That's why this information presented in the OP is so definitive and important.

We HAVE the official data and this FORCES the authorities and/or official story defenders to reconcile this data with the topography, obstacles, and of course physical damage and this is something they can not do.

Watch the NTSB animation to see how they depict the plane completely out of the bank long before it reaches the VDOT area.

reply to post by PplVSNWO


Firstly, Ppl....

I have not had the luxury of examining all of the DFDR data from AAL77/

Perhaps you have.

I will allow this, for the moment....

I am in possession of the UAL93 DFDR data.....but it seems to include, as well, tha AAL77 data.


Now, as an airline pilot, I tend to know a little bit about how to read this data, (NO, not the raw data, but after it's been read out....and describerd by the NTSB).

Guess what I meant to refer to was....I can read the trancripts.

Obviously, I cannot read the binary data, from the Recorders.....since, as a Human, I cannot read Binary!

Unless you wish to conclude that all of the DFDR and DCVR recordings are compeletely unavailable as to reaching the 'truth'.....then, only one interpretation is acceptable.

THAT 'interpretation' is....ALL of this data was somehow 'faked'.

AND, that is not possible, once you understand the companies that built these devices....just look up 'Sunstrand'.....for a start.

reply to post by weedwhacker


weedwacker,

The FDR (flight data recorder) has nothing to do with the CVR (cockpit voice recorder).

The alleged CVR from "flight 77" allegedly did not yield anything at all.

This thread is strictly about the alleged FDR, the data from which was released by the NTSB in 2006.

You don't have to be able to read it because the NTSB also produced an animation that you can watch that was allegedly based of the FDR data.

It makes this discussion REALLY EASY to stay on topic.

Now,

Do you dispute any of the information presented in the OP and do you understand how this is fatal to the official story?

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
Interesting that on NTSB animation course is plotted way left of the antenna (you can see the building next to it on your right). This somehow doesn't match the yellow pins on Google Earth. Who made a mistake? NTSB or yellow pin guy? Did anyone tell you that there are different geographical datums? Just an idea to further deepen the obscurity of the issue

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


CIT, I'd rather you U2U me, regarding the way the CVR and DFDR are time co-related.

Modern jets use something that co-relates to the 'ZULU' time, not (edit here....should have been the word 'now') known as 'GMT'.....

So, to proclaim otherwise seems to diminsh your points, if you want to be taken seriously.



[edit on 9/20/0808 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by syeager9


That's an old issue that was discussed over and over long ago.

We don't know why, but it appears the animation IS based off the data but that the NTSB rotated the map.

More on this here:

Google Video Link

They work hard to confuse you and we work hard to unravel it and make sense of it all.

It has no effect on the OP though and the point that the raw data and the physical evidence requires the plane to be on a flight path just over the VDOT antenna.

Remember, the value for altitude also comes from the NTSB.

Originally posted by syeager9
Who made a mistake? NTSB or yellow pin guy? Did anyone tell you that there are different geographical datums? Just an idea to further deepen the obscurity of the issue

While that may be the case and could change the location of the set of pins to the north/south, east/west, presumably the gradient would be the same, which would mean that the line would no longer intersect the impact point on the pentagon itself, thus having a useful check in itself.

reply to post by weedwhacker


One more time.....

NO DATA WAS RECOVERED FROM THE ALLEGED CVR FROM "Flight 77".

And even if there WAS recovered CVR data this would have nothing to do with the OP.

I asked this question before, but nobody from CT camp answered me. So I will ask again.

How are you sure that FDR long/lat/alt data are accurate? Assuming that long/lat was supplied by INS and alt by the barometric altimeter that are inherently inaccurate and have to be be periodically calibrated? I mean several times during one flight, not once a month or year. With INS you can not only miss the building or airport. You can miss the whole country, as Korean Airlines 747 proved in 1983. But this is another CT And with altimeter it's the same story. At low altitudes it must be set to the pressure reported by some weather facility to be accurate. It can be done automatically via radio signal or manually. And one thing you will never know if it was set right or not, as terrorists could turn unnecessary equipment off.

reply to post by syeager9


The physical damage and the topography requires the plane to be in the same place that the raw data says that it was.

Of course we know that it WASN'T there because....

1. The witnesses saw it on the north side of Columbia Pike, over the Navy Annex, and north of the gas station.

2. The topography and obstacles make the final descent impossible for a 757 at the reported speeds and altitude.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by syeager9

 

The physical damage and the topography requires the plane to be in the same place that the raw data says that it was.

Of course we know that it WASN'T there because....

1. The witnesses saw it on the north side of Columbia Pike, over the Navy Annex, and north of the gas station.

2. The topography and obstacles make the final descent impossible for a 757 at the reported speeds and altitude.

Wow! Great answer. But it's no answer. I asked how can we be sure any data, raw or cooked, can be accurate considering the source of information. By source of information I mean not FBI or NTSB, but instrumentation and sensors that AC had.

edit:

However, I assume from your statement that "The physical damage and the topography" corresponds to raw data? Then I can't figure out where is conspiracy? There must be something wrong with math then. And a I said before who do I trust? Yellow Pin Guy or NTSB? Give me a single reason I should trust Google Earth Yellow Pin Guy.

[edit on 9/20/08 by syeager9]

reply to post by syeager9


syeager9

This is an important question.

BECAUSE.....

As far as I Know, on September 2001....there was NO GPS update to the FMS.

Now, this will likely confuse people.

Execpt, everyone today must know what 'GPS' is....but to imagine that it wasn't commonplace in the year 2001, in passenger commercial jets...well, it wasn't!!

We still used, then....the INS....'Inertial Navigigation System'....but enhanced as the 'IRS"...."Inertial Reference System'.....

See, the 'IRS' would 'initialize', same AS the INS....but once 'Initialized', based on the Lat/Longs typed in at the gate of departure, the 'IRS' would use th3 Inertial Reference, wiht Updates for VOR/VOR or VOR/DME or DME? DME triangulation updating.

THEN, we got GPS!!!!!!


So, now...all there 'IRS' devices (needed to have three, for over-watrer ops) get real-time updating from GPS....and this is what you rely on, today....eery time you fly on an airplane across any ocean....

THIS is how it works, boys and girls!!

Need to know more? Juat ask!!



(edit)....I tried to make corrections, for spelling and grammar....but I expect I missed a few mistakes...)



[edit on 9/20/0808 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by weedwhacker
Some time in 1997 or so I flew in Africa on a charter DC3 that had GPS installed in the panel! However for whatever I know, GPS wasn't approved as a primary navigation tool till some time after 911 in the US. So I wouldn't be surprised that most airliners didn't have it 2001. However I always "cheated" on my VFR flights in Cessna 172 starting from some time in late 90's using $150 hand held GPS. Anyways, INS or IRS, whatever you call it couldn't provide accurate position in 2001. It wasn't designed to do so.

And about DME. What relevance it has? It's for the crew to find where the Fugavy. Is it recorded? I thought it's only passive method of navigation like VOR.

[edit on 9/20/08 by syeager9]

reply to post by syeager9


syeag

I was referring to DME/DME updating, to the FMS....before we had GPS updating to the FMS.

Old days (prior to GPS) the FMS was Iniatialized, at departure airport. We knew to swith to 'Radio-updating'....to allow for VOR/VOR or VOR/DME or DNE/DME or even, when tuned, LOC/DME uptating, as appropriate.

This, the 'early days' of FMS.

You know, of course, that today, we have 'RNP' and 'ANP' standards....and when 'ANP' exceeds parameters, we get an 'alert'.....

Of course, if you have no idea what I'm talking about, then you have now idea what YOU are talking about.

reply to post by weedwhacker
I have some idea about what you are talking about. I am EE and I worked on design of avionics from late 70s till mid 80s. Mostly for military applications. It's not quite the same, but I can understand how things work. Most electronic aids to navigation were developed for military first.

However all this alphabet soup has little relevance to the AA77 flight discussed here. I am simply questioning the accuracy of data that could be obtained from FDR or ground facilities. I have no interest in modern flight directors and such. I am curious about what was available on AA77 in 2001.